Site Mobile Navigation

Bush Garners Little Support at U.N. for an Attack on Iraq

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 16 — The Bush administration's push for an early American-led war against Iraq drew broad opposition today in an unusual open debate in the Security Council. Many countries backed weapons inspections, and Arab states said they would not support an attack without United Nations endorsement, considering an attack only as a last resort.

In the first day of a special Council session, which was charged with the sense that the basic shape of global security was at stake, Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed to the Security Council to maintain unity, warning that the United Nations would be seriously weakened by a rift.

Iraq defiantly denied charges, which were repeated frequently today, that it had failed to comply with Council resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq's ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, called the United Nations economic sanctions against his country an act of genocide. He sharply rejected the American and British proposal for a new, tougher resolution for Iraq to disarm, calling it "an insult to the international community and the United Nations."

In Washington, President Bush warned European and Arab nations that are resisting a confrontation with President Saddam Hussein that "those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear."

After a meeting with the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Mr. Bush said he fully expected that Israel would retaliate for any unprovoked Iraqi attack.

Mr. Bush also painted a far more ominous picture than he has to date about the dangers of allowing the debate in the United Nations to drag on for more than a few weeks.

"If Iraq gains even greater destructive power, nations in the Middle East would face blackmail, intimidation or attack," he said in the East Room, flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. "Chaos in that region would be felt in Europe and beyond. And Iraq's combination of weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist groups and ballistic missiles would threaten the peace and security of many nations."

The two-day public debate in the Security Council was called at the insistence of the nonaligned movement, a loose coalition of developing nations. Speakers today were from countries that do not hold seats on the 15-member Council, but were invited to join the debate.

As intensive negotiations over a new resolution among the five permanent, veto-bearing Council powers dragged into the fifth week, the non-Council nations have become exasperated that their views were not being considered and demanded to be heard.

With no Council votes, the nations that spoke today cannot directly influence the discussions on the resolution. But they included Egypt, Kuwait, Turkey and other nations that could be directly involved if the United States goes to war against Iraq, as well as the European Union, Canada and other important American allies. The veto-bearing members of the Council — the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France — are to speak on Thursday.

The deadlock over the resolution continued today, with France and the United States wrangling over the stage at which to authorize military force. No meetings of the five permanent members to discuss Iraq were even on the schedule.

Bush administration officials listened to the debate with only one ear, focusing on the detailed discussions among the Council power players. Washington remains determined to get a single resolution that would give it authority to launch a military attack, administration officials said.

Mr. Annan, in a statement that was read in the Council as he traveled in Asia, said he supported a new resolution to strengthen the weapons' inspectors hands. He told Iraq that Baghdad was in violation of many resolutions.

"Iraq has to comply," Mr. Annan said bluntly, and he warned that the Council would have to "face its responsibilities" if it did not, a code word for war. But in a plea clearly directed at the United States and France, Mr. Annan said, "If you allow yourselves to be divided, the authority and credibility of this organization will undoubtedly suffer."

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Mr. Annan's call for the Council to reach consensus was echoed by many nations, as was his demand for Iraq meet its obligations to the Council. There was also nearly unanimous support for allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to return as soon as possible to Iraq to search for prohibited weapons programs. Many nations described the inspections as the last chance to force Baghdad to give up its most dangerous weapons without war.

Apprehension about Washington's war plans to topple Mr. Hussein was especially strong among the Arab nations.

"An attack on Iraq would open a Pandora's box," said Yahia A. Mahmassani, the representative of the Arab League. "It will lead to civil and ethnic war in Iraq and also destabilize the whole Arab region, which is already outraged at the Israeli occupation," he said.

"The war on Iraq will negate the present world order, the charter of the United Nations and international law," he said.

Even Kuwait, which was freed from Iraqi occupation in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, insisted that "any use of force must be a last resort and within the United Nations framework, and only after all other available means have been exhausted."

Arab representatives, including those from American allies like Egypt and Jordan, complained of a double standard, saying the Council had been less forceful in bringing Israel to comply with resolutions calling for a nuclear-free Middle East and for it to withdraw from lands occupied in the 1967 war.

"It would be tragic if the Security Council were to pre-judge the work of the inspectors before they set foot in Iraq," said South Africa's ambassador, Dumisani S. Kumalo, who was also speaking on behalf of the nonaligned nations.

Iran, a neighbor that fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq, objected strongly to the Bush administration's policy of "regime change" for the Iraqi leader, calling it "fully alien" to international law. Ambassador Javad Zarif warned that an attack on Iraq would "sow seeds of new hatred" in the Middle East "that will feed instability for years to come."

Even United States allies like the European Union, which supported tough pressure to disarm Iraq, gave no support for a unilateral American strike against Baghdad. It insisted that the issue be handled through the Security Council.

Mr. Bush surrounded himself today with Democratic supporters of the Congressional war resolution, which he signed this morning. It authorizes him, at his sole discretion, to decide when diplomacy has failed and force is necessary. He repeated today that he had not made that decision — but then described a series of conditions for Mr. Hussein that seemed to make military action all but inevitable.

For the first time, Mr. Bush painted a picture of what Iraq might look like after Mr. Hussein is no longer in power, promising to "help Iraqi citizens find the blessings of liberty within their own culture and their own traditions." But he made no specific mention of the Administration's plans to occupy Iraq for a period of months or years before the country can hold free elections.

He argued that time was wasting, and his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said later the president was only willing to wait a few more weeks for the United Nations to end its deliberations.

"Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America," Mr. Bush said. Asked later whether Mr. Bush was talking about removing Mr. Hussein's weapons or the leader himself, Mr. Fleischer said, "Both."

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this article appears in print on October 17, 2002 of the National edition with the headline: Bush Garners Little Support at U.N. for an Attack on Iraq. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe